Traffick - The Business of Search Engines & Web Portals
Blog Categories (aka Tags) Archive of Traffick Articles Our Internet Marketing Consulting Services Contact the Traffickers Traffick RSS Feed

Google’s Definition of Relevance in PPC? Clicks.

Posted September 20th, 2011 by Andrew Goodman

Relevance in search means a lot of things to a lot of people. Information retrieval scientists right down to the average user of a search engine might think there is quite a lot to determining what is “relevant” to any given user on any given query. There is. Although by no means scientific, SEOmoz’s annual review of what experts think are factors determining search ranking

So when organic search principles seemed to be seeping into paid search programs, many observers read a lot more into the terminology than really should be read, it seems.

Remembering back to the launch of AdWords Select in 2002, Google explicitly defined the AdRank formula as your Max Bid on a keyword multiplied by CTR. They referred to this as rewarding more relevant ads. Indeed, at times they displayed a green bar denoting “user interest.” What was relevance, or “user interest”? It was synonymous with “clicks.” More clicks, higher ad rank.

Enter Quality Score, circa 2005, and several updates of it since. A whole industry has arisen trying to deciphering it.

Some Google documentation refers to “relevance,” “the quality of the landing page,” “other relevance factors,” and so on.

But for years, key architects and managers of the AdWords product have quietly counseled people not to go overboard in interpreting these definitions.

Nick Fox, one of the leading pioneers in the AdWords program, used to remind us that the various other “relevance factors” were mostly “different cuts at” either predicting or reflecting the same measure of relevance… that being clicks, or CTR.

At SMX East last week, in our session on AdWords best practices, Fred Vallaeys flatly stated that by so-called “relevance,” Google basically means clicks.

It might sound really cool to try to divine how Google assesses information and scent, and user satisfaction all the purchase cycle, from ad impression, to click, to landing page, to further activity on site. It might be neat to guess at the semantics and other technology involved in “other relevance factors.” But in terms of the overall weighting in the vast majority of cases, as Vallaeys implied, these things might as well not exist. Google counts clicks. They may count them relative to the situation, normalize them for match type, etc. etc., but that’s what we mean by “relevance” here.

Another thing Vallaeys said (agreed on by many of us over the years) is that you shouldn’t be slavishly pursuing this click goal at all costs. You pick the ad, the segment, the bid, the match type, etc., that ultimately returns the best ROI for you. So in other words, Google rewards x, and you should be generally mindful of it, but ultimately pursue y.

“So why, then, do we devote so much time in these sessions to Quality Score, when so many other things are so much more important?,” asked an attendee.

“Because people want us to,” replied a panelist.

The truth about how to outperform the competition in the AdWords auction is not simple. But it’s also true that the “Quality Score industry” benefits from overcomplicating things and in many cases, misleading people about how Quality Score works. Also, like too many SEO’s, Quality Score pundits offer too much speculation about components of the formula, instead of sticking to what is known to be true.

Displayed Quality Score, like toolbar PageRank, has a seemingly endless capacity to bamboozle. It’s time to give it a rest, at least in the general marketing industry dialogue.

Knowing the ins and outs of the formula helps me quite a bit in my job, but I don’t think these lengthy dissections of it in public forums are as helpful as many speakers hope. I vow to pare back my treatment of QS in the future, and to focus on the most helpful tips and heuristic uses.



3 Responses to “Google’s Definition of Relevance in PPC? Clicks.”

  1. Great post, Andrew. I have a post publishing next Monday at SEL on the same theme — sparked by that same discussion at SMX East — and including a few suggestions for how Google could help us waste less time chasing “the perfect” QS.

    Sorry to be beaten to the punch, but delighted to be in such good company!

  2. Jahi says:

    You know that ROI is always and will always be the priority when considering the amount of invested in web research technologies. When one comes to recommend a strategy or two the ideal is that there will be some relevant return whether in sales, quotes, or at the minimum product inquiries or page views. I’m looking to find out what it would take to get $10000 to go back to school and finish my doctoral degree. Now in the case I do a search and get some irrelevant results that lead me down a dead in path I will be at a loss of time and effort. Now it comes to detail and knowing exactly how to find what I’m searching for of course, but in the case I am unable to identify the proper keywords or terms I will be unable to trigger the appropriate ads. In the since school loan or scholarship ads. Doing a click-stream analysis would not help and nor would the number impressions help in identifying me as a customer for the perfect match? Quality is subjective to the end-user. Many searchers are generalist and the first two or three links may do. However, I am thinking that the saturation of content is what is probably created to divert some unwanted customers maybe. Not that is in the control of the proprietor, but the industry has continued to water down the content and makes it difficult to get to the bottom-line. However, I find the topic interesting and could continue to ramble on about some of the industry issues I have come across.

  3. Martin Roettgerding says:

    Hey Andrew,
    I agree that quality score is usually overcomplicated. But that’s mainly Google’s fault: telling people it’s about quality is simply better marketing than admitting that it’s about clicks (and ultimately money).

    In case you are interested in the whole story, I have offered a simple explanation of what quality score is and does: http://bloosearch.com/2011/01/26/the-secret-of-quality-score/

    Still, the complicated and sometimes contradictory views on quality score continue to have more fans ;)

    Martin


 


Traffick - The Business of Search Engines & Web Portals

 


Home | Categories | Archive | About Us | Internet Marketing Consulting | Contact Us
© 1999 - 2013, Traffick.com. All Rights Reserved